Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Omori v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided September 30, 2021No. 1:21-cv-02173

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of State Read by a model
Beginning in March 2020, the State Department suspended routine visa processing services due to the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting embassies and consulates to processing visa cases deemed “emergency” or “mission critical.”
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs Satoshi Nishihata and Ayaka Nishihata are applicants for diversity visas for the fiscal year 2021 diversity visa program.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to succeed on “their Mandamus and/or APA claims” that Defendants “have a clear and nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate their DV visa applications.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ [9] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ [9] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed an [9] Motion for a Temporary Restraining (“TRO”) on September 27, 2021.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ [9] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ [9] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ [9] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Moreover, the Court cannot ignore that the practical effect of granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would allow Plaintiffs to proceed to the front of the queue of other similarly-situated diversity visa applicants
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Japan Read by a model
Plaintiff Satoshi Nishihata is a Japanese national and a selectee in the 2021 Diversity Visa Lottery.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-02173
Filed
August 13, 2021
Ended
October 4, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
52 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2021-10-04; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.